Read on Twitter
This weekend, I took some time to read the "Theory and Best Practices in Science Communication Training" book, edited by @tpn1818 ( https://www.routledge.com/Theory-and-Best-Practices-in-Science-Communication-Training/Newman/p/book/9781138478152).
Thanks to @DrTristanMcLean for flagging it! I'm going to share some of the #SciComm points that I'm thinking about
Thanks to @DrTristanMcLean for flagging it! I'm going to share some of the #SciComm points that I'm thinking about
I noticed 3 recurring themes in this book: that #SciComm trainers are not aware of the literature or best practices, "the majority of programs focus on skills development" and that "few studies have examined evaluation in the context of science communication training programs."
Chapter 1: @choleness, @addudo, @ShupeiYuan & @JohnBesley flag that trainers need to help direct #SciComm towards specific outcomes: "Trainers can provide scientists with the skills and confidence to diversify their science communication objectives beyond educating the public."
"Trainers need to help scientists understand the different types of objectives and goals available to them...our interviews also suggest that trainers seldom help scientists identify the objectives and goals best suited to their communication style."
Big gap to address
Big gap to address
This also stood out in chapter 1: "Since science communicators are not science journalists, training that emphasizes journalistic skills may be inappropriate or, at best, too narrow."
Thoughts on this @Kerologist, given your recent Conversation piece? https://theconversation.com/scientists-heres-how-to-fight-back-against-anti-maskers-climate-deniers-and-anti-vaxxers-145989
Thoughts on this @Kerologist, given your recent Conversation piece? https://theconversation.com/scientists-heres-how-to-fight-back-against-anti-maskers-climate-deniers-and-anti-vaxxers-145989
Chapter 5: @tossgas & @JenniMet shared the evolution of their #SciComm workshops, initially focusing on media skills, before expanding further e.g. training scientists for the annual Science Meets Parliament Day in Canberra, Australia ( #scipol). Format is interesting: the day...
...before, scientists have to explain their work & importance in 1 min, with a jury (journalist, MP & lobbyist) to provide feedback.
"As a training session it was quick and brutal – and effective: how to give a brief explanation of complex work and its value in simple terms."
"As a training session it was quick and brutal – and effective: how to give a brief explanation of complex work and its value in simple terms."
...because I'm curious: @MattMcTaggart, how does this (^) compare to the training that researchers in 
receive for the Science Meets Parliament?
receive for the Science Meets Parliament?
I learned about the De-Jargonizer ( http://scienceandpublic.com/ ) as a tool "to assess general vocabulary and jargon use to help scientists and science communication trainers adapt their texts and messages to various audience."
Reminds me of the Hemingway App: http://www.hemingwayapp.com/
Reminds me of the Hemingway App: http://www.hemingwayapp.com/
Chapter 8 ("Evaluating science communication training") by Yael Barel-Ben David & @ayelet_bt was an interesting read. Not going to try & summarize it, but will share a 
: "There is no generalized “gold standard” or best practice for science communication training. We do not...
: "There is no generalized “gold standard” or best practice for science communication training. We do not...
...claim that one should exist. We do, however, argue that science communication training programs should formulate their goals and aims, and incorporate evaluations from the outset to be able to rigorously interpret the outcomes and effects of the program."
Chapter nine described how the challenges that the science community is facing (e.g. limited funding, misinformation, mistrust) is similar to a cultural shift that the health communication field went through, pivoting to an audience/patient-centered communication.
Key point: unlike #SciComm training, "health communication training is routinely offered as a professional development opportunity, known as Continuing Medical Education...health care professionals must complete a minimum number of CME credits to maintain licensure."
Opportunity for action here: "Although no formal professional development is required for scientists, finding ways to incentivize them through professional channels can serve a similar purpose."
Finally, @brookesimler frames chapter 10 as an interesting thought experiment on how "it may be time to think about building infrastructure, or building a Metro, to support scientists’ communication." This includes having a destination (objectives), being aware of the full...
...routes (pathways) to explore, engineering the Metro (using research and data to build and evaluate science communication), supporting policies, investing in infrastructure & having a central authority to coordinate (aka a Metro Transit Authority).
(this was a fun analogy!)
(this was a fun analogy!)
"...it is time to build an infrastructure that channels scientists’ passion and energy, while simultaneously ensuring communication efforts are efficient, effective (with measurable impact), sustained, and supported, both culturally and financially." — @brookesimler 
